Evil is not absence of good

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MT1926 said:
But what is the intent? If you are resting to regain your strength or because you just finished mowing the lawn for your dad, that is good. If you are laying around doing nothing when your dad asked you to take out the garbage that leans towards the evil side. It all comes down to intent and I can’t think of a single intent that would be neutral. Because, as we can see with my examples the intent might not even be directly related to the action, but still has an effect on whether it is good or evil. Unless, we can come up with some examples of a neutral action I stand by my claim that a neutral action does not exist.
Click to expand...
Doing nothing where there is noting to do is neither bad nor good.
 
Bahman said:
Doing nothing where there is noting to do is not bad.

So forget resting in my example.

Please read the first comment.
Click to expand...
If there were truly nothing else to do you would be at a point of requiring rest… ergo good. But fair enough to your second comment 🙂

But theologically I can take any example you’d like and give it good/bad lacking in nuetral 🙂
 
Bahman said:
I have a simple question: Do you experience evil subjectively like the way you subjectively experience good?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by subjective. All human standards are subjective, except where they conform to the divinely revealed Objective.
 
SilverShadow22 said:
I don’t know what you mean by subjective. All human standards are subjective, except where they conform to the divinely revealed Objective.
Click to expand...
Subjective: Relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind.
 
Bahman said:
Subjective: Relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind.
Click to expand...
Then we experience everything subjectively, but must judge it according to an objective standard.

No matter anyone’s personal (subjective) opinion of, or experience of, murder – it is objectively wrong.
 
LethalMouse said:
If there were truly nothing else to do you would be at a point of requiring rest… ergo good. But fair enough to your second comment 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, suppose that you have noting to do and you don’t need rest.
LethalMouse said:
But theologically I can take any example you’d like and give it good/bad lacking in nuetral 🙂
Click to expand...
You can think of evil, neutral and good as a line like this evil<-neutral>good.
 
Bahman said:
Doing nothing where there is noting to do is neither bad nor good.
Click to expand...
You sound just like my kids. 😉 There is never nothing to do. The only people that think there is nothing to do are the ones that aren’t looking very hard. I have a list so long it would take me 5 lifetimes to complete.

You either do nothing to rest and regain your strength which is good, or you tell yourself there is nothing to do out of laziness which slides towards the evil side however is not neutral.
 
MT1926 said:
You sound just like my kids. 😉 There is never nothing to do. The only people that think there is nothing to do are the ones that aren’t looking very hard. I have a list so long it would take me 5 lifetimes to complete.

You either do nothing to rest and regain your strength which is good, or you tell yourself there is nothing to do out of laziness which slides towards the evil side however is not neutral.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍

Lol yes! And I can never get enough of “dad there is nothing to do”… yes there is, plenty :confused: lol
 
SilverShadow22 said:
Then we experience everything subjectively, but must judge it according to an objective standard.
Click to expand...
Well, that is how science work.
SilverShadow22 said:
No matter anyone’s personal (subjective) opinion of, or experience of, murder – it is objectively wrong.
Click to expand...
There is no objective evidence that murdering is objectively wrong. Consider the case of a person who is in very bad health condition. Living longer is just bringing more suffering and death is a relief .

In fact I have a thread which I argue ethics versus rationality.
 
Bahman said:
Well, that is how science work.

***** There is no objective evidence that murdering is objectively wrong.***** Consider the case of a person who is in very bad health condition. Living longer is just bringing more suffering and death is a relief .

In fact I have a thread which I argue ethics versus rationality.
Click to expand...
Once again the tyranny of relativism rears its ugly head.
 
MT1926 said:
You sound just like my kids. 😉 There is never nothing to do. The only people that think there is nothing to do are the ones that aren’t looking very hard. I have a list so long it would take me 5 lifetimes to complete.

You either do nothing to rest and regain your strength which is good, or you tell yourself there is nothing to do out of laziness which slides towards the evil side however is not neutral.
Click to expand...
So lets assume that there exist an Absolute Good. Then there are actions which are less good. We can sort these actions on a line depending how good they are. So now we reach to a point to believe evil is real or not. If we accept evil then we are dealing with a line which is start with Absolute Evil then less evil etc. Our line look like thus Absolute Evil in one end and reach to Absolute Good on the other end. I can represent it as following: Absolute Evil<--------->Absolute Good. The problem however is what is the point at which the action is neither evil or good? This means that there should exist a point in the middle of this line which is neutral so our line look like this “Absolute Evil<----- neutral---->Absolute Good”. Now how is the situation when Evil does not exist? Our line look like this: neutral---->Absolute Good. We have neutral point on our line since it refer to action that it isn’t good et all.
 
Bahman said:
So lets assume that there exist an Absolute Good. Then there are actions which are less good. We can sort these actions on a line depending how good they are. So now we reach to a point to believe evil is real or not. If we accept evil then we are dealing with a line which is start with Absolute Evil then less evil etc. Our line look like thus Absolute Evil in one end and reach to Absolute Good on the other end. I can represent it as following: Absolute Evil<--------->Absolute Good. The problem however is what is the point at which the action is neither evil or good? This means that there should exist a point in the middle of this line which is neutral so our line look like this “Absolute Evil<----- neutral---->Absolute Good”. Now how is the situation when Evil does not exist? Our line look like this: neutral---->Absolute Good. We have neutral point on our line since it refer to action that it isn’t good et all.
Click to expand...
Theologically this nuetral is simply not a true option. It is either good/ evil. That is the nature of the issue. We can create “nuetral and gray” areas for our own sake, but not for God’s which is why I said about differing philosophies. With God there is Good or Evil. Within alternate theories about existence there may be a nuetral so the question here is what philosophy do you want to use for the sake of your OP premise? You would have to state a preexisting philosophy that is known or lay out in detail a new one.

If you believe God truly cares less if X happens when the current religions disagree, you would have to present this new religion and then by its nature we would have to concede that your point is 100% correct within the philosophy…however it cannot be correct in the Catholic faith.

Even a meteor striking Pluto to no effect is Good because it is God’s will. There is simply no nuetral.
 
davidv said:
Once again the tyranny of relativism rears its ugly head.
Click to expand...
So you don’t kill a person who is suffering severely because of an illness? I do it happily. How such a situation could be objectively true when you cannot convince me.
 
LethalMouse said:
Theologically this nuetral is simply not a true option. It is either good/ evil. That is the nature of the issue. We can create “nuetral and gray” areas for our own sake, but not for God’s which is why I said about differing philosophies. With God there is Good or Evil. Within alternate theories about existence there may be a nuetral so the question here is what philosophy do you want to use for the sake of your OP premise? You would have to state a preexisting philosophy that is known or lay out in detail a new one.

If you believe God truly cares less if X happens when the current religions disagree, you would have to present this new religion and then by its nature we would have to concede that your point is 100% correct within the philosophy…however it cannot be correct in the Catholic faith.

Even a meteor striking Pluto to no effect is Good because it is God’s will. There is simply no nuetral.
Click to expand...
Did you understand my post? Consider my post as a part of my philosophy so I encourage you to understand it better.
 
Bahman said:
Did you understand my post? Consider my post as a part of my philosophy so I encourage you to understand it better.
Click to expand...
Then you are unquestionably correct in your assertion within the religion of Bahman. There is literally no way for you to be wrong. Therefore YES to every aspect tou have thrown out IF the truth of the universe is what Bahman says/thinks.

Unequivocally NO IF Catholicism, most christianity, Judaism, and Islam are correct… then this is inherently wrong 🙂

:hug3:
 
Bahman said:
So you don’t kill a person who is suffering severely because of an illness? I do it happily. How such a situation could be objectively true when you cannot convince me.
Click to expand...
It’s not your place to say when suffering makes life ‘un-live-able’. It’s nobody’s place, not even the one suffering. The slope of euthanasia is sharp, steep, and slippery.
 
Bahman said:
Did you understand my post? Consider my post as a part of my philosophy so I encourage you to understand it better.
Click to expand...
If you’re still seeking the truth, you can’t have a dead-set philosophy. Otherwise, you’re preaching, not asking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top